A modest proposal from UF

Yes, I know the title may be interpreted otherwise, but this is not Jonathan Swift-style satire.


Instead, this is what happens when I misread Arsene Wenger, mash it up with a Rugby Union rule, spend an hour recalculating the EPL table, then realize what I thought I read was not in fact what I read. I flirted with abandoning the whole idea, but then decided to inflict my madness upon you. So now you're stuck.

The idea germinated from this Spoiler post where Arsene Wenger talks about handing out bonus points for scoring goals. As any of you with reading comprehension skills above mine can plainly make out, Wenger wants to reward teams who demolish other teams with extra points in the table instead of just goal difference. Simply put, a win would still be worth three points, but every goal that a team wins by would also be worth a point. Winning by one goal gets you four points, winning by two gets you five and so on.

Of course, as I have already admitted, this is not how I read it. What I saw was Wenger calling for a bonus point system much like the one in Rugby Union. If I recall correctly, in Rugby Union when a team scores five tries in a match (win, lose or draw), they get a bonus point in the standings. When I skimmed what Arsene had said, I though he was calling for a similar system wherein an EPL club scoring three goals in a match gets gets a bonus point. Of course, I was wrong, but that doesn't mean I stopped working on it.

I was possessed. I went to the BBC website to scour through this season's matches to find out who would benefit the most from such a rule change this year. The somewhat surprising answer--Arsenal.

Yes, Wenger's kids--the ones with all of those nil draws around the New Year--would benefit the most if such a rule were put into play today (with the caveat that I may have missed some results). Arsenal have scored three or more goals nine times this season. Liverpool have netted three or more in eight games and Manchester United have managed the feat in seven matches. At the other end of the spectrum, Stoke City have only scored more that two goals in one match, while Middlesbrough have failed to do so at all this season.

And yes, it does change the table, though in some strange ways. Here is the current table (only useful before this weekend). And here is an ugly look (since Blogger doesn't do tables easily) at how the table would look with the UF BONUS POINT.

Pos. Team (Rank change) points; GD
1. Liverpool (+1) 75; +34
2. Man U (-1) 75; +32
3. Chelsea (0) 70
4. Arsenal (0) 67
------------
5. Everton (+1) 57; +13
6. Aston Villa (-1) 57; +6
---------------
7. West Ham (0) 47
8. Man City (+2) 44
9. Fulham (0) 43; +3
10. Wigan (-2) 43; -2
11. Bolton (+1) 43; -9
12. Tottenham (-1) 41
13. Blackburn (+1) 37
14. Stoke (-1) 36; -16
15. Hull (0) 36; -17
16. Portsmouth (0) 35
17. Sunderland (0) 34
------------------
18. Newcastle (0) 31
19. Middlesbrough (0) 27; -24
20. West Brom (0) 27; -31

As you can see, the immediate beneficiaries are the so-called Big 4. Arsenal have now opened up a ten point gap on Everton. No need to worry about just trying to hold on to those Champions League spots now as they are pretty secure. Liverpool have also overtaken Man U, but that's just temporary, right?Also, Everton and Aston Villa have solidified their Europa League spots under the new setup. Manchester City have had the biggest jump of two places, but are still well out of any European slots (unless 7th place sneaks in).

At the other end of the table, there is not much change. Of course, these teams don't hit three goals very often, so that is to be expected. The team that is immediately helped is, oddly, bottom dwellers West Brom. WBA have notched three goals on three different occasions this season. Since 19th placed Middlesbrough are the one team that have not done so, the three point gap between the two is erased. Both teams still need some four-pointers to get out of the relegation spots, though.

I see this as an evolutionary addition to football changing from two points for a win to three. Whereas that rule change got rid of teams almost exclusively playing for a draw, this rule change might see an end to overly defensive play where the idea is to get one goal and hold on. Of course, there is still no cure for such play in knockout phases, but we'll work on that.

Read more on "A modest proposal from UF"...

Counterpoint: These Are Not the Dives You Are Looking For

One of my favorite books about contemporary culture and media is The Culture of Fear by Barry Glassner. The conceit of the book isn't that unique - Americans are made to feel paranoid by the sensationalist media and opportunistic politicians who push non-problems and non-issues to the public. But he's masterful in debunking myths about road rage, date rape drugs, and welfare queens, and gets to the mechanics of manufacturing fear.

I bring this up because whenever I hear people complain about diving in soccer, I'm reminded of The Culture of Fear. Simply put, diving isn't an problem in soccer (well, at least in the Premier League, any way), and hearing people whine about its pervasiveness is more annoying than watching Cristiano Ronaldo appeal for a penalty.

This isn't to say that diving never happens. Couple of years ago, Drogba was forced to backtrack when his "Sometimes I dive, sometimes I stand" comment caused an entire nation to gasp and cry out "Well, I never!" in unison. Nor am I suggesting that it's a natural part of the game (so you can put that strawman away). All I'm saying is, yes, it happens, it affects results, and it sucks. But over the course of the season, the amount of diving is simply not enough to tilt results in any significant way.

Maybe it's because I'm a Moneyball disciple and everything can be quantified if you look for the right numbers, but I'm not willing to believe diving is a problem until I see evidence that it is. I'm more willing to believe that diving is a phenomenon is a classic Culture of Fear non-trend, a "man bites dog" story that has the illusion of being an increasing trend (not to mention the barely hidden xenophobia that rears its head when people decide diving is a pervasive problem).

On the "Great List of Something We Must Do Something About Right Now or We're Doomed, Doomed", diving ranks somewhere between the quality of the pitch at Wigan's JJB Stadium and those new orange Nike Vapors that the kids are wearing these days.

Which is all a very long-winded way of saying, revamping the video review system to catch divers and shame them is silly, if not necessarily wrong or evil. In fact, it's similar to the system the Football Association already has. A video review panel that reviews incidents that weren't dealt with by the referee, so it's not like we're being technophobic here. And simulation is a punishable offense - remember the Tal Ben Haim case from a couple of years back? And except in the most blatant of cases, video evidence is rarely conclusive. If a guy going full speed gets tapped on the heel, he's going to go flying.

The only difference between what my colleague proposes and the current system is that under his suggestion, the panel reviews every incident from every match, whether anyone asks or not. That's nice, but to what effect? Believe it or not, matches are already televised, so I'm not sure if players are that worried about being publicly shamed. And players who do develop reputations for diving become the boy who cried wolf. Which is to say, any effect the added video review won't be worth the trouble.

And curbing diving will somehow prevent incidents like Martin Taylor's tackle on Eduardo da Silva? Are you kidding me? That tackle happens whether or not there's a culture of diving in the Premier League. It's what happens when a slower, less skilled player tries to stop a quicker, skillful player by any means. Taylor knew he would get at least a yellow when he went into the tackle - that was just a professional foul (hey, that's kinda like the name of our blog!) gone very, very wrong.

And, the referee isn't going to have trouble recognizing intentional fouls just because he's watched too many players take a dive, and decided, fool me twice, they won't get fooled again.

The Eduardo incident wasn't about refereeing. It was about recklessness condoned, and too often celebrated, as tough defending. As World Soccer's Gavin Hamilton points out, that's a far more pressing issue than the mythical foreign hordes landing on English shores and flopping all about the pitch. The only gripe I have with FA's current disciplinary system is that there is no sliding scale for suspensions, and how dangerous, career-threatening plays are treated as harshly as harmless displays of petulance.

Read more on "Counterpoint: These Are Not the Dives You Are Looking For"...

Counterpoint: Gerrard's going nowhere

As David Brent once said, "A good idea is a good idea... forever."

Except when it isn't.

When it comes to ideas, ones that aren't utter crap (examples of utter crap ideas being New Coke or the 39th int'l PL match) generally fall into one of three categories: Those who are ahead of their Time (anything Nikolas Tesla conceived), those whose Time have arrived (Obama for President), and those whom Time have left by the wayside (The Pet Rock).

Now, the very idea that Liverpool Football Club would sell its captain, generally recognized the world over as one of the top midfielders in today's game (by rational peoples and those not under the delusion that Frank Lampard is a better player), would be complete poppycock. But, since this mind-boggling scenario actually almost came to pass some three years ago, it would have to be classified within the latter of the categories.

Yet, just like it was back then, it's still an absolutely crap idea.

Like his talents, the problems with selling Steven Gerrard are numerous.

Generally speaking, big football clubs do not attempt to gain success (i.e. silverware) by parting with their best player. Why? Because, making your team worse does not tend to make your team better. And, teams who aren't winning silverware are unlikely to start winning silverware when they become markedly worse then they were when they already weren't winning silverware.

I know it's a tricky concept, but I've got faith that even an Evertonian can grasp it.

Liverpool (of which I am obviously a fan and will often refer to as 'we' from here on out) are not in the habit of selling our star players for a handsome profit. We're Liverpool, not Tottenham. Regardless of present stumbles, we're not a feeder club for 'bigger' fish. (As Carra would say, 'Who's bigger than Liverpool?') Regardless of current debt, we don't value success on the books over success on the pitch. We're already one of the world's top clubs because we have a history of success & silverware. And, you don't enjoy either without having incredible talent on the field.

Name a top, ambitious European club, in recent modern football, who has sold a star player (in their prime and not because of a personal falling out... I'm looking at you, SAF) and gone on to win more trophies in the immediate future.

I'm not going to wait for you to Google it, either.

Did you say United and Beckham?

Get out. Right now. No, really...

Milan sold Shevchenko and went on to win the 2007 Champions League. But, Andriy was on the doorstep of 30, an age at which strikers generally tend to begin their descent. While success post-sale isn't improbable, as exceptions to the rule must exist, most team's cupboards are not over-stocked with so much talent as to survive a major defection.

What's that you say? You actually have the nerve to doubt Gerrard's credentials? You think he's over-rated? You don't actually rate him at all?

I won't make a rash statement such as 'he's the best player of his generation' or 'England's best talent', but to dismiss his obvious talent(s) is pure folly. No player is perfect and Stevie G certainly has his share of foibles (let's be honest, he's taken a few dives in his day... but he's no C Ronaldo). But, when the conversation turns to which players you'd built a starting XI around, he has to be on that list. A true box-to-box midfielder, comfortable on both sides of the ball, he can tackle with the best of them at one end (or anywhere) and crash into the box to net a breath-taking match winner on the other. He most certainly rates as one of the most talented and industrious midfield players (let alone, attack-minded central midfielders) playing the game today.

There are those who would argue that selling Stevie G would provide LFC with a finanical windfall that would allow them to go purchase more talented players.

How much would Gerrard realistically fetch in today's market?

On the very highest (and improbable) end, maybe £30m - £35m? How many world-class talents can you buy with that? Any proven talent of that level has a price tag that starts after 20 large. Fernando Torres cost Liverpool upwards of 26 million. So, with the money you receive from sending Captain Fantastic on his way, you'd basically be swapping him for another big name and have roughly ten million pounds left to buy another Ryan Babel (but, not even). Unless, you're Professor Wenger and can pull another talented teenager out of your hat.

But don't take my word for it (cue 'Reading Rainbow' theme song here)... Scouse, born and bred, Lingering Bursitis puts it even more succinctly:

"We don't need the extra money, we don't need to rebuild from scratch, and regardless of if we got 40 million pounds+ for him, which we could then use to fix several key areas, are there really any guarantees that such a videogame-esque gamble would amount to anything?"

There are those who would argue that Stevie G is actually the root of Liverpool's problems (and having won every medal except one, that could only mean 'inability to win the Premier League'). They say the team depends upon him too much, but his emotions are too mercurial and his moods affect the team's overall pysche and disrupts its consistency.

Well, he most certainly does affect the team's psyche. With match-winning goal after match-winning goal, with inspirational performance after inspirational performance, the team definitely depends on him and responds to his efforts. That's why he's our captain. No one player is perfect -- everybody will have off-days. But, I know he's ready to play for the club, shirt and fans each time he laces up his boots and each time he takes the field, anything is possible. So, I'll take the good with the bad, the wins with the losses and the beauty with the warts.

Every club should be as lucky to have a Steven Gerrard; A player who came up through the ranks, who is a local boy, who understands what the club means to the fans and understands its history. How many top clubs have a player of his magnitude, his talent, his importance that IS a fan of the club, that IS from the immediate area? Do you have any idea how big of a deal it is that two of Liverpool top players are Scousers like Gerrard and Carragher? Because, if you don't understand what that means, then you should just go back to rooting for Chelsea.

Lingering Bursitis breathes another breath of fresh air into the argument...

"Selling Gerrard is wrong because it does nothing to fix the problem at the club. It solves nothing, while simultaneously ridding us of our best player, our talisman, and one of the last remaining Scousers we actually have on the team. It'd be the death of the old guard, the death of the club's attachment and vestiges to the local area, and it would be the most cynical move, motivated purely by money.

For branding it's terrible, and really, it makes us just as bad as the other Big 4 clubs, particularly those in London, who have long since traded all sense of their character and history for a bunch of over-priced, over-paid mercenaries who couldn't give two shits which shirt they're wearing as long as they're making 50 grand a week."

To have seen him progress from a talented teen plagued by back and groin problems into the next potential England captain truly has been special. My only hope is that after seeing him hoist trophy after trophy, we'll see him raise that elusive one in the none-too-distant-future.

Alfred Whitney Griswold once said "The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.” Selling Steven Gerrard is a bad idea. Like my colleague has already stated, Liverpool may have its problems but those problems aren't going to get fixed by selling #8.

A better idea is to buy and cultivate more players with Steven Gerrard's talents (and El Nino's!).

Read more on "Counterpoint: Gerrard's going nowhere"...